Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important topic! I enjoyed reading it, and I loved the reference to the supporter/fan framework from Mjreard.
My feelings: the EA community is somewhat better than average at 1-2, most definitely better at 4 in certain cases (and I think cultivated meat is a good example, as EA circles very often argue for it on non-animal welfare grounds). I agree that 5 is an EA failure mode (I’m on the obsequious / sycophant side, I’m a bit cowardly and think being “fully transparent” about your values often leads to unproductive conflict), and 3 is something where improvement could be made (though it’s hard-ish for longtermist causes, or even when you care about animals—heck, even discussing the welfare of cute mice seems to backfire).
Again, this is an important topic, since how we influence others positively could have a large impact, and taking a few hours to think about how to do it right is certain worth it.
I agree that 5 is an EA failure mode (I’m on the obsequious / sycophant side, I’m a bit cowardly and think being “fully transparent” about your values often leads to unproductive conflict)
Zoe actually said the opposite:
being overly obsequious (rarely a failure mode among EAs from my observation, but definitely among the performative feminist males)
But I also misread her at first in the same you did, so maybe that means something.
I think there’s actually a mix of both problems in EA when it comes to talking about EA to people outside EA (which is the context Zoe was talking about). There are people being overly indirect or sheepish, and people being too combative and rude. I don’t think the solution is to “balance” the two, as if they exist on a number line, but something more complex. Which is how to be both confident and forthright, on the one hand, and respectful and gentle, on the other hand.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important topic! I enjoyed reading it, and I loved the reference to the supporter/fan framework from Mjreard.
My feelings: the EA community is somewhat better than average at 1-2, most definitely better at 4 in certain cases (and I think cultivated meat is a good example, as EA circles very often argue for it on non-animal welfare grounds). I agree that 5 is an EA failure mode (I’m on the obsequious / sycophant side, I’m a bit cowardly and think being “fully transparent” about your values often leads to unproductive conflict), and 3 is something where improvement could be made (though it’s hard-ish for longtermist causes, or even when you care about animals—heck, even discussing the welfare of cute mice seems to backfire).
Again, this is an important topic, since how we influence others positively could have a large impact, and taking a few hours to think about how to do it right is certain worth it.
Zoe actually said the opposite:
But I also misread her at first in the same you did, so maybe that means something.
I think there’s actually a mix of both problems in EA when it comes to talking about EA to people outside EA (which is the context Zoe was talking about). There are people being overly indirect or sheepish, and people being too combative and rude. I don’t think the solution is to “balance” the two, as if they exist on a number line, but something more complex. Which is how to be both confident and forthright, on the one hand, and respectful and gentle, on the other hand.